I have not yet seen anything that convinces me at what density of which types of activities "pedestrianization" becomes a great boon. I wish somebody would present the argument in a convincing way. Clearly not everywhere should be "pedestrianized": David Roberts: Barcelona, Spain, Urban Planning: A City’s Vision to Dig Out from Cars: "a four-square-block area, roughly 5,000 square meters, has been pedestrianized, reclaimed from cars and given over to people for a mix of uses. Only residents’ vehicles and delivery vehicles enter, and when they do, they are on the same level of pavement as pedestrians and must match their speed...
... We have come upon a crosswalk, with a small ramp leading to a painted pathway across the street. At the curb, there’s a trash can on one side and a lamppost on the other. The tableau is, to my eye, entirely unremarkable.... The city attempts to be comprehensible, navigable, and welcoming at a human scale, to people not in cars.... Rueda’s enthusiasm for the fine-grained texture of urban life—the spacing of trees, the height and orientation of signs, the structure of intersections—is infectious. His discourse on crosswalks comes amid a two-hour stroll filled with such details, each one revealing some new facet of the city’s logic and history, like little veils being peeled away.... I can’t help but be struck by a contrast. To one side of us is the superblock, filled with people walking with their shopping bags and small dogs, sitting in clusters, everywhere talking and talking.... Or at least they look like they’re talking. The low buzz of conversation is drowned out by what’s to our other side: cars...
#noted
